I know this as Hyrum's Law (which also comes from a Googler):
"With a sufficient number of users of an API,
it does not matter what you promise in the contract:
all observable behaviors of your system
will be depended on by somebody."
I've only been to Italy once, and Riva del Garda is one of the places I visited. Funny to see it called middle of nowhere. Grappa is delicious, yet it is surprising to see that it's used in an "official" cocktail.
For lldb, checkout the `sif` command. It lets you step into a specific function by name. If the current line is `doFunStuff(a(), b())`, and I want to step past the a and b functions, then I can step into doFunStuff by running `sif Fun`. You could type in the whole name but it works matches by substring.
I've had this experience earlier this year. It's great, and I too mention it when I can. For me, it's often a nicer alternative in cases I might otherwise consider SQL in some way. My only complaint is aggregate functions are harder to use.
It really sucks that this is the top comment. To use the cliche: This is why we can't have nice things.
Please consider the following as a more frank replacement tl;dr:
"My promises implementation didn't work out for me. Maybe I just didn't go about it the best way, but judge for yourself by reading about my individual experiences, references from 70's papers, a bunch of 'what ifs', no code, no benchmarks, no constructive alternatives, and repeated use of 'we' instead of correctly using 'I'."
Is the above unfair? Maybe somewhat, but if so only as unfair as your representation. I enjoyed your GC article, but any good points to take from "Broken Promises" (or your above comment) are impossible to see through the thickness of pejoratives.
"With a sufficient number of users of an API, it does not matter what you promise in the contract: all observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody."
https://www.hyrumslaw.com/